PC 01/27/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

within the project. Mr. Swift stated that the airport protection area s ifically excluded the Chu property, therefore, that concern has no basis. Mr. Pico's third question had to do with timing of the school constru tion and whether the school district had sufficient money collected from this project and th Stoneridge area to actually build the school. Mr. Swift said he did not know how much money the school district had in its elementary school construction fund. It has been c lecting money for a number of years now at a rate of $1.25 per square foot. As of Janu 1, that was raised to $2.65 per square foot. All of these projects require that an agreeme is worked out between the school district, the City, and the developer before the City will al ow construction of houses to begin. Mr. Swift further noted that the school is anxious t begin construction on the school site in 1994 and open for the 1995/1996 school year. Mr. Swift corrected the staff report and said that the Chu project could actually begin constru tion in 1994. Commissioner Mahern asked Mr. Swift for further clarification in re ard to the sidewalk issue. Mr. Swift stated that as the project plan is now proposed, it is in conformance with the PUD. If necessary, more sidewalks could be added at the Tenta' e Map stage; however, staff feels that adding a second sidewalk would greatly impact the fro t yards and the parking area. Chairman Hovingh further discussed the Airport Land Use Commissi n with Mr. Beougher. Mr. Swift also reiterated that none of the Chu property is included in the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) clear and approach zone. Commissioner Michelotti asked Mr. Swift for further clarification in egard to the school construction and whether the fees paid by the Chu project will actuall be spent on a school near the project site. Mr. Swift said the school district has the abilit to decide where they wish to use development fees; in fact, the fees can be used in any of e schools. Generally speaking, development fees are earmarked for any school. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Larry Bartelson, 2600 Kittyhawk Road, Livermore, represented the a plication. He noted that the applicants are both present to answer any questions. He stat that the applicants are in concurrence with all the conditions and the revised conditions as r d tonight. Mr. Bartelson spoke in regard to Mr. Pico's concerns: (1) He point out that the project is in conformance with the PUD as it is presently planned. He stated t this is already a tight project and that any additional sidewalks would force them to redesig the whole project. (2) In regard to the Airport Land Use Commission, Mr. Bartelson s ted that the Chu project is not included in that area. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1993 Page 5